this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
122 points (95.5% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
poVoq@slrpnk.net
122
A 'radical' approach of tackling homelessness in Spain: give every person living on the street a home - (video, 8 min) (www.euronews.com)
submitted 9 months ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/europe@feddit.de
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

First developed in the US, the initiative known as Housing First, is being adopted increasingly in Europe. Unlike traditional approaches, it doesn't require individuals to meet certain criteria before receiving housing assistance. The idea is that homeless individuals have a higher chance of creating a brighter future for themselves if they first have a roof over their heads.

Carlos Martínez Carrasco lived rough for several years before a Housing First initiative provided him with a flat on the outskirts of Madrid.

He told Real Economy that the flat has changed his life in every way: "I no longer lack the things that you do when you’re on the street and I can cook. I don’t have to find a way to wash clothes... I can go out with the peace of mind that I have a place to come back to. I am very happy today."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No, there really don't have to be. Even letting them trash the place is still better for society overall than any other strategy we've tried.

Let me be clear about that:

  1. FYI, the subset of homeless people who would trash the place is relatively small to begin with. Contrary to the stereotypes, most homeless people really are decent people down on their luck, not assholes who want to wreck shit for the lolz.

  2. When I say "still better" I don't mean better for the assholes, I mean better for everybody else. Giving them housing and then letting them wreck it is actually cheaper than spending a bunch of money screening them out and then leaving them on the street to do crimes or whatever.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The subset of homeless people who would trash the place is relatively small to begin with.

On one hand I agree with this idea, on the other hand, people who are chronically homeless-not just for a short period of time-typically have a reason. Addiction, mental illness, whatever have you.

On the second point, the building needs to be maintained. You can’t just let people destroy because it costs not only them, but anyone who comes after them trying to use the same resources.

I agree that housing the homeless is kind of the no brainer answer, but there is a very real, very damaging subset of homeless populations that will take extreme advantage of and ruin public services for everyone else.

I don’t have a good answer to that, but dumping public money into housing, giving it ti the homeless, then finding that it’s turned into a cesspool because of allowing any sort of behavior or treatment of the property isn’t gonna fly- definitely not with the public anyway

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

On one hand I agree with this idea, on the other hand, people who are chronically homeless-not just for a short period of time-typically have a reason. Addiction, mental illness, whatever have you.

Yeah, and...?

  1. It's not worth the cost (in terms of social worker manpower etc.) to try to separate them out from the non-chronically homeless on the front end.

  2. "Housing first" is not "housing only." Getting them into housing makes them a lot easier to reach with addiction treatment or psychiatric help or whatever.

Regarding the rest of your comment, you seem to be under the impression that all these homeless people would be concentrated together in shitty housing projects, which isn't really how it works anymore. In the 21^st^ century, we're talking about placing people into mixed-income housing, where all the neighbors paying market rate set a good example and the peer pressure is directed towards improvement instead of wallowing in poverty.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's not worth the cost (in terms of social worker manpower etc.) to try to separate them out from the non-chronically homeless on the front end

Yes it is. Homeless shelters, food banks, rehab clinics etc. all have minimums you have to meet to be there. Resources are limited and you can’t pour resources into someone who isn’t trying to utilize them to improve.

I agreed wholeheartedly with your second point.

In the 21^st^ century, we're talking about placing people into mixed-income housing, where all the neighbors paying market rate set a good example and the peer pressure is directed towards improvement instead of wallowing in poverty.

Yeah I don’t think that’ll work out the way you’re thinking it will. Peer pressure only works if people care about their peers, and local residents won’t be super fond of free housing popping up next to the housing they paid for, affecting their property values.

That point makes my above remarks even more important.